Filip says Measure 20-373 defeat leaves Lane County watersheds unprotected

Lane County voters rejected Measure 20-373 by about 63% to 34% among roughly 58,000 ballots cast, shutting down a proposal that would have given watersheds, ecosystems and wildlife the right to naturally exist, flourish, regenerate and evolve and would have let residents sue over violations.

Justin Filip, who is running for Oregon’s 4th Congressional District, said the defeat left Lane County watersheds exposed to corporate interests. The measure, known as the Lane County Watersheds Bill of Rights, had qualified for the ballot in September 2025 after organizers gathered more than 14,000 signatures.

Supporters cast the proposal as a response to pollution they said existing environmental rules had failed to stop. They pointed especially to drinking water concerns, aerial herbicide spraying and pressure on the McKenzie River watershed and other local streams. Chief Petitioner Michelle Holman, McKenzie Watershed Protective and Mountain Rose Herbs backed the measure.

If approved, the county would have been required to enforce and defend the law. Any business, corporation or government entity found liable would have had to pay restoration costs, plus an additional 1% per day until the problem was fixed after notice to a government authority. Opponents argued the measure was too broadly written, lacked clear water-quality standards and could open the door to lawsuits against farmers, small businesses and local agencies.

Money shaped the fight. Opponents organized under Protect Our County and raised more than $313,000, with reporting showing they outspent supporters by roughly 10 to 14 times. That opposition money was tied in reporting to timber, business and real estate interests. Supporters said that imbalance showed the power of money in local elections; opponents said their broader fundraising and coalition showed the measure never had enough public backing.

The campaign drew coverage from OPB, KLCC, KVAL and The Register-Guard as the county argued over a basic question with everyday consequences for Lane County households: who should control land and water decisions, and how much risk farmers, timber interests and local governments should carry when watersheds are damaged. With the measure defeated, that fight stays in the hands of the existing system.